|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 835 Records
-
2010 (4) TMI 1061
Third member appointment - difference between the ld' JM and the ld' AM - addition u/s 68 - cash credits unexplained - JM confirmed the impugned deletion made by CIT(A) while the learned AM upheld the addition made by the AO - HELD THAT:- The assessee has given the complete addresses. The summons were duly served on these parties. AO had drawn an inference against the assessee and made the addition without enforcing the attendance of the parties to whom the summons were issued and duly served. AO even did not give an opportunity to the assessee that these parties did not appear even after the service of the summons but made the addition.
As per me AO was bound to give opportunity to the assessee before taking the adverse inference against the assessee. Once the summons have duly been served on the parties, the identities of the parties are duly proved. AO has not done anything except serving summons so that the attendance of the parties could be enforced. Even the assessee was not made known about the non-appearance of the parties. T
AO was duty bound to give opportunity to the assessee before drawing an inference against the assessee. The case of the assessee is duly covered by the decision of Nathu Ram Premchand’s case[1962 (8) TMI 81 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. - AM has not distinguished the facts of the case with the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Ram Premchand (supra) while confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Once the AO has not given opportunity to the assessee for the 3 creditors for which the assessee asked to issue summons, the inference cannot be drawn against the assessee. The summons were duly served. Under these facts, the assessee has discharged his onus what can be expected from. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and the learned JM was correct in law in holding that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee.
Unrecorded investments for purchase of goods - JM confirmed the action of the CIT(A) in deleting addition while the learned AM confirmed the addition - HELD THAT:- From the copy of account, as noted that against all the transactions relating to the assessee, the bill numbers are duly mentioned but in respect of the transactions which the assessee has denied, M/s. Narain Food Products has not mentioned any bill number but has shown the draft, bank etc. Thus no addition can be made merely on the basis of the evidence procured by the third party unless and until that party is put to the assessee for cross-examination, specially when the assessee has categorically denied the transaction. Statement relied on by the Revenue itself does not disclose the bill number through which transaction is entered into. It only contains ‘through drafts etc.,’ only. Therefore, this evidence, cannot be a valid evidence to make the addition. Once the assessee had denied the transaction, the Assessing Officer was bound to adduce the evidences for the rebuttal of assessee - AO has not done so. Therefore, under the facts of the case, I agree with the learned JM deleting the addition.
The matter will now go before the regular Bench for deciding the appeal in accordance with the majority opinion.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1060
Issues involved: Dispute over addition on account of unutilized modvat credit u/s.145A for assessment year 2004-05.
Summary:
The cross appeals were filed against the CIT[A]'s order for the assessment year 2004-05 concerning the addition on account of unutilized modvat credit. The AO noted the unutilized modvat credit balance, and added the sum to the closing stock as required by sec.145A. The CIT[A] confirmed the decision subject to modification that adjustment was also required in the opening stock. The department challenged the deletion of the addition, while the assessee disputed the adjustment u/s.145A. The Tribunal found a similar dispute in the assessee's case for A.Y 1999-2000, where adjustment in both opening and closing stock was required. The Tribunal emphasized that modvat balance did not amount to payment until set off against central excise liability. The Tribunal set aside the CIT[A]'s order and directed the AO to re-examine the issue in line with the Tribunal's decision for A.Y 1999-2000, ensuring no double deduction. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of adjusting unutilized modvat credit in both opening and closing stock, following the precedent set in the assessee's previous case. The Tribunal clarified that modvat balance does not equate to payment until set off against central excise liability. The matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh order, with the direction to avoid double deduction and provide the assessee with a hearing opportunity.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1059
Issues Involved:
1. Segregation of surrendered income as deemed income.
2. Treatment of surrendered income as "deemed income" and its tax implications.
3. Creation of a new head of income "deemed income."
4. Classification of surrendered cash as business income or income from other sources.
Summary:
1. Segregation of Surrendered Income as Deemed Income:
The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the Assessing Officer's (AO) segregation of surrendered income of Rs. 5 lakhs as deemed income, refusing set off u/s 70 and 71 of the I.T. Act. The AO assessed the surrendered income u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, treating it separately from business income and disallowing set off against business losses.
2. Treatment of Surrendered Income as "Deemed Income" and Its Tax Implications:
The assessee argued that the surrendered income should be treated as business income, referencing the statement made during the survey and entries in the cash book. The AO, however, relied on the judgment in Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT, which held that deemed income u/s 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C is not classified under any heads of income u/s 14 and thus not eligible for deductions. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the assessee failed to provide evidence of the source of the surrendered cash.
3. Creation of a New Head of Income "Deemed Income":
The assessee claimed that the lower authorities incorrectly created a new head of income "deemed income." The Tribunal, referencing the Gujrat High Court's decision in Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT, clarified that deemed income under sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C is treated separately and does not fall under any specific head of income, thus not qualifying for deductions.
4. Classification of Surrendered Cash as Business Income or Income from Other Sources:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee surrendered Rs. 5 lakhs as additional income during the survey, which was not recorded in the books. The General Manager admitted the cash as income from other sources. The Tribunal concluded that the surrendered income is deemed income u/s 69A and not business income, thereby disallowing the set off of business losses against it. The alternate plea to assess the income under "income from other sources" and allow set off u/s 71 was also rejected.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order to treat the surrendered income as deemed income u/s 69A and disallowing the set off of business losses against it. The decision was pronounced in the open court on April 30, 2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1058
Addition made on account of investment in land - real owner of land - certain incriminating documents were found containing details of transactions of land entered into with land owners and builders - HELD THAT:- The land situated at Thaltej Char Rasta has been sold by the assessee to Shri G.C. Patel through Shri Manoj Vadodaria, there is no material on record to indicate that the said land in fact belongs to the assessee. Though the AO has placed reliance upon the statements of Shri Manoj Vadodaria and Shri G.C. Patel for the purpose of taxing the amount in the hands of the assessee, despite specific request being made by the assessee for cross-examining both the said persons, the AO has not permitted the assessee to cross-examine them.
In the circumstances, no reliance could be placed upon the statements of the said persons as the respondent assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine them. The statements made by the aforesaid persons would have no evidentiary value and as such, would not be admissible in evidence. Further, though the said Shri Manoj Vadodaria has stated that he has paid ₹ 60 lakhs to the assessee on behalf of one Shri G.C. Patel, the said amount has not been taxed in the hands of Shri G.C. Patel. Moreover, no evidence has been adduced to indicate that any transaction in relation to the land in question has actually taken place.
Tribunal has rightly found that the basis for making the addition in the case of the assessee is merely a bald statement of Shri Manoj Vadodaria, which is not corroborated with any documentary evidence found at the time of search, either in the case of Shri Suresh A. Patel or Shri Manoj Vadodaria or the assessee. No plea to the effect that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any perversity has been raised.
Tribunal having based its conclusion on findings of fact recorded by it after appreciation of the evidence on record, it cannot be stated that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity while holding that there was no justification for making the disputed addition in the hands of the assessee and directing deletion thereof. Besides it is not the case of the Revenue that the order of the Tribunal is vitiated on account of any perversity. Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1057
Issues Involved: Appeal against order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for F.Y. 2004-05.
Issue 1: Determination of nature of transaction between assessee and concessionaires.
The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision that the transaction was principal to principal, not principal to agent. The AO imposed tax liability u/s 194 H on concessionaires' margins, treating them as "commission." The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee for F.Y. 2003-04, stating that section 194 H did not apply. As the Tribunal's decision for the earlier year had not been overturned, the CIT(A) rightly followed it for the current appeal, upholding the assessee's case.
Issue 2: Classification of payments to concessionaires.
The revenue contested the CIT(A)'s ruling that payments to concessionaires for selling milk/products did not constitute "commission" u/s 194 H. The AO had imposed tax liability and interest u/s 201(1A) based on treating the margins as commission. However, following the Tribunal's decision from the previous year, the CIT(A) correctly set aside the AO's order, as the Tribunal had held that section 194 H did not apply to the present case. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.
Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on its earlier ruling for F.Y. 2003-04, which determined that the provisions of section 194 H did not apply to the transaction between the assessee and concessionaires. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld based on the Tribunal's previous decision.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1056
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction u/s 80-IA for manufacturing activity.
2. Disallowance u/s 37 of the Act.
3. Addition on account of Gross Profit (GP).
4. Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act.
Summary:
1. Deduction u/s 80-IA for Manufacturing Activity:
The first issue in ITA No.782/Ahd/2006 concerns the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction u/s 80-IA on the grounds that the assessee is a manufacturer of bidi, which qualifies as a manufacturing activity. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the issue was already decided in favor of the assessee by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Prabhudas Kishordas Tobacco Products P. Ltd. (2006) 282 ITR 568 (Guj). The High Court held that tendu leaves and tobacco lose their independent identity after being processed into bidis, which are commercially distinct commodities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
2. Disallowance u/s 37 of the Act:
The next common issue in ITA No.782/Ahd/2006 and ITA No.2064/Ahd/2006 pertains to the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance claimed u/s 37 to Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 65,000/- respectively. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2001-02, upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing 1/3 of the expenses claimed by the assessee. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.
3. Addition on Account of Gross Profit (GP):
In ITA No.782/Ahd/2006, the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,14,00,920/- on account of GP. The AO had estimated the GP rate based on the previous year without rejecting the book results or pointing out defects. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the AO cannot estimate the GP rate without rejecting the book results and without pointing out defects. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.
4. Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act:
The final common issue in ITA No.782/Ahd/2006 and ITA No.2064/Ahd/2006 involves the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance made by the AO u/s 40A(2)(b) for excess interest paid to related parties. The AO had disallowed the excess interest paid at 22% compared to the bank rate of 19.05%. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, noting that the loans were for business purposes, the interest rate was consistent with previous years, and the related parties were paying tax at the maximum marginal rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the interest rate reasonable and the AO's comparison with secured bank loans incorrect. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders on all issues. The judgment was pronounced on 30th April 2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1055
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions as withdrawn after the petitioner requested withdrawal due to an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1054
Issues involved: Challenge against communication by Director General of Foreign Trade denying transitional arrangements under para 1.6 of the FTP for import of marble slabs due to absence of LCs.
Factual Background: Petitioner engaged in import of marble slabs, entered into a contract for import with a Chinese supplier. Customs accepted the contract, and partial imports were made. Subsequently, an amendment restricted import of certain goods. Petitioners applied for permission to import remaining quantity under the contract, but DGFT refused.
Submissions: Petitioner's counsel argued that the contract was genuine, already executed partially, and payments made through banking channels. Emphasized the importance of irrevocable LC for sanctity of the contract. DGFT's refusal was challenged for lack of reasons and non-application of mind.
Counter-arguments: Respondent's counsel contended that fiscal policies are in public interest, and interference by courts should be limited unless fraud or lack of bonafides is proven. Cited judgments supporting this stance.
Consideration: Court noted the purpose of requiring irrevocable LC before imposition of restrictions was to prevent manipulation. Found no evidence of petitioner attempting to take advantage or bypass the modified policy. DGFT's refusal lacked reasoning and did not consider the genuine nature of the contract.
Judgment: The court quashed the communication denying permission, remitted the matter back to DGFT for reconsideration, and directed a time frame for contract completion if permission granted. Petition allowed with no costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1053
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of addition made by Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of foreign buyer's agent commission u/s 37 r.w.s. 93 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding disallowance of foreign buyer's agent commission. The confirmation letter from the agent was furnished during assessment proceedings, confirming their role as a commission agent for the assessee. Despite the agent being located in a foreign country, detailed information was sought and provided, establishing the genuineness of the transactions. Various confirmations from different parties were presented, supporting the commission payments made directly to the agents. The Tribunal found the evidence conclusive and in line with previous decisions, allowing the deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of deducting commission from export invoices as per agreements between buyers and sellers, highlighting the diversion of income by overriding title. The Tribunal also referenced the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court regarding commission payments. Ultimately, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer concerning the disallowance of foreign buyer's agent commission, based on the conclusive evidence provided and in accordance with relevant legal principles.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1052
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals in the case with citation 2010 (4) TMI 1052 - SC. Justices S.H. Kapadia and Swatanter Kumar were part of the order.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1051
Issues:
1. Tribunal's error in penalizing Customs House Agent for incorrect declaration by exporter
2. Consideration of all material evidence by the Tribunal
Issue 1: Tribunal's error in penalizing Customs House Agent
The High Court admitted the appeal based on the substantial question of law regarding the Tribunal's decision on the obligation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) in ensuring the accuracy of the declaration made by the exporter in the shipping bill. The Court questioned whether the Tribunal erred in holding that a CHA can be penalized under the Customs Act, 1962 for any incorrect declaration by the exporter. The Court granted interim stay on the implementation of the Tribunal's order, directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the penalty amount with the Commissioner of Customs and furnish a bond for the balance amount. The Court specified that if the appeal succeeds, the deposited amount would be returned to the appellant with interest.
Issue 2: Consideration of all material evidence by the Tribunal
The High Court also raised the issue of whether the Tribunal should have considered all material evidence, including the statement of Mr. Bibhas Nandi, which was dated 7th June, 2003, and had a bearing on the case. The Court emphasized that the non-consideration of such crucial evidence could vitiate the Tribunal's order. Despite the representation of the respondents by their learned Counsel, the Court waived the service of notice of appeal on them. Additionally, the Court directed the appellant to file the requisite number of paper books within three months from the date of the order and allowed the supplementary affidavit filed in Court to be taken on record. Furthermore, the Court instructed that a photostat certified copy of the order would be supplied to the parties upon application, subject to compliance with formalities.
In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues related to the Tribunal's decision on penalizing a Customs House Agent for incorrect declarations by exporters and the consideration of all material evidence in the case. The Court's detailed analysis and directions provided clarity on the legal aspects involved, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the matter.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1050
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act and revocation of Identity Card.
2. Suspension of CHA license under Regulation 20 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 and imposition of penalty.
3. Lack of notice issued to the appellants for imposition of penalty.
4. Timing of suspension of CHA license and lack of further action for revocation.
5. Allegations of producing forged documents and unauthorized actions.
6. Appeal against the orders passed under Regulation 20 or Regulation 22.
7. Lack of penalty imposition on the Director mentioned in the show cause notice.
8. Justification for immediate suspension of CHA license.
9. Compliance with the requirements of Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involved appeals against a common adjudication order where penalties were imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act and regulatory actions were taken. The first issue concerned the imposition of penalties and revocation of the Identity Card. The Tribunal found that the appellants had submitted forged documents, leading to penalties and revocation of the Identity Card. The appeal by one appellant was dismissed due to lack of grounds for challenge.
2. The second issue focused on the suspension of the CHA license and penalty imposition under Regulation 20. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the issuance of notices and the lack of penalty imposition on the mentioned Director. It was found that the suspension of the CHA license was not justified due to delays and lack of further actions for revocation. The penalty on the CHA firm was set aside.
3. The lack of proper notice issuance for penalty imposition was a significant concern in the third issue. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following due process and ensuring that penalties are imposed correctly on the appropriate parties. In this case, the lack of notice to the appellants for penalty imposition led to the penalty being set aside.
4. Timing issues regarding the suspension of the CHA license and the subsequent lack of action for revocation were addressed in the fourth issue. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely actions and proper follow-up procedures in regulatory matters. The suspension order was set aside due to delays and lack of further actions.
5. Allegations of producing forged documents and unauthorized actions formed the basis of the fifth issue. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence presented and concluded that penalties were justified in cases of forgery and unauthorized actions. The penalties imposed were upheld based on the evidence provided.
6. The sixth issue revolved around appeals against orders passed under specific regulations. The Tribunal clarified the grounds for appeal and the scope of challenging regulatory actions. The dismissal of an appeal due to lack of valid grounds was highlighted in this issue.
7. Lack of penalty imposition on the Director mentioned in the show cause notice was a key aspect of the seventh issue. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in penalty imposition and emphasized the importance of clarity in regulatory actions. The penalty imposition was set aside due to inconsistencies in the adjudication order.
8. The eighth issue focused on the justification for the immediate suspension of the CHA license. The Tribunal analyzed the regulatory provisions and the necessity for prompt actions in such cases. The lack of proper justification for immediate suspension led to the suspension order being set aside.
9. Compliance with the requirements of Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 was crucial in the ninth issue. The Tribunal emphasized the need for adherence to regulatory procedures and the gathering of sufficient information before taking regulatory actions. The suspension order was set aside due to non-compliance with the regulatory requirements.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1049
Grant of refund - refund granted subject to the condition that assessee will have to file an undertaking in this Court, within four weeks from today, that in case it loses at the final hearing, it will have to return the amount with interest that may be fixed by this Court at the final hearing.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1048
Transfer the case u/s 127 - transferring the jurisdiction from Guwahati to New Delhi - Whether the order u/s 127(2) satisfies the requirements spelled out in the Statute? - validity of notice issued under section 142(1) by non-jurisdictional officer - It is the case of the petitioner that he was never intimated about the order of transfer and no reason whatsoever was assigned to him towards transferring the jurisdiction from Guwahati to New Delhi.
HELD THAT:- Section 127 mandates that assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard while exercising the power to transfer cases. Although a rider "wherever it is possible to do so" is also there, it is not the case of the respondents that it is not possible to do so. Further, the order is to be passed after recording the reasons for doing so.
Apart from the fact that the petitioner was not provided with any opportunity of being heard in the matter, the reasons assigned in the order dated 24-7-2007 which is "administrative convenience and for co-ordinating effective investigation" also cannot be said to be the reasons as envisaged in section 127(1).
Writ petition succeeds on both counts, i.e., non-issuance of notice to the petitioner and non-furnishing of reasons for transferring the matter from Guwahati to New Delhi. Consequently, the impugned order dated 1-8-2007 (Annexure-B) stands set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed, however, without any order as to costs.
Setting aside of the impugned order may not preclude the respondents from proceeding with the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. In favour of assessee
-
2010 (4) TMI 1047
Whether Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOCA, so far it relates to `promoting insurgency' are constitutionally invalid on following two grounds:-
(a) the Maharashtra State legislature did not have legislative competence to enact such a provision; and
(b) the part of Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOCA, so far as it covers case of `insurgency', is repugnant and has become void by enactment of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004, amending the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
-
2010 (4) TMI 1046
CENVAT Credit - credit denied that the gods not manufactured by the manufacturer - Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that credit can be allowed merely on the strength of the invoices of manufacturer if the goods are not manufactured by him?
HELD THAT:- Tribunal has rightly held that even if the alternator may have been manufactured at Delhi as contended by the revenue, as long as the duty liability of such alternator had been discharged by the supplier, entitlement of the respondent company to avail of CENVAT credit in respect of the duty paid on the capital goods in question cannot be disputed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1045
Whether the service rendered by Section Officers before and after possessing the degree or equivalent can be taken into account for consideration for promotion under the degree holders quota?
Whether their cases may be considered under the diploma holders quota as well for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer?
-
2010 (4) TMI 1044
Whether the claim of the appellant regarding payment of a lump sum amount by way of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was not maintainable in view of the pendency of four matters relating to grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, for the minor daughter?
Whether the appeal be kept pending for a period of three months and the records be remitted to the learned Judge, Family Court at Aurangabad, to take additional evidence relating to the estimated income of the Respondent No.1, keeping in mind the list of assets annexed by the appellant to her Rejoinder Affidavit and to send back the same to this Court for final disposal of the instant appeal?
-
2010 (4) TMI 1043
Valuation - grey fabrics - value of grey fabrics was higher compared to the value declared for the fabrics processed from such grey fabrics - duty on the lower assessable value on the basis of instructions from the Merchant Manufacturers - On being asked, Mr. Desai stated that no such statement is to be found in the statement of Mr. Punjabi. Under these circumstances, the reliance placed on these statements are contrary to the reliance placed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1042
Delay in sending samples for forensic - Appeal against Acquittal - Upon completion of trial, trial court passed judgment convicting respondents under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 1985 – High court vide impugned order acquitted respondent of charge under Section 15 – Held that:- Section 15 makes possession of contraband articles an offence – Evidence led by prosecution to establish that respondents were found sitting on aforesaid bags of poppy husk – Sub-Inspector also stated that presence of accused respondents at such early hour near religious place with such large number of bags and their sitting on them and on seeing police party their conduct of trying to hide themselves behind bags prove and establish that they were in possession of aforesaid bags – Admittedly there was merely delay of about seven days in sending samples to Forensic Examiner and it is not proved as to how aforesaid delay of seven days has affected said examination when it could not be proved that seal of sample was in any manner tampered with – Current Court in Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab [2008 (8) TMI 892 - SUPREME COURT] condoned delay of about 40 days in sending sample to laboratory after same was seized – In our considered opinion, ratio of aforesaid decision squarely applies to facts of present case – Respondents hereby directed to surrender forthwith and undergo remaining term of imprisonment as directed by trial Court – Impugned order of acquittal set-aside – Decided in favour of Appellant.
............
|
9911796707
